Effects of Propolis Extract on Growth Performance and Health Condition of Dairy Calves

Effects of Propolis Extract on Growth Performance and Health Condition of Dairy Calves | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Effects of Propolis Extract on Growth Performance and Health Condition of Dairy Calves Ali KABİLOĞLU, Neşe KOCABAĞLI, Ayşe Ilgın KEKEÇ This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1676290/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 16 Mar, 2023 Read the published version in Tropical Animal Health and Production → Version 1 posted 4 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of propolis ethanol extract (EEP), a natural beekeeping product, on performance, fecal structure and general health status of calves during the preweaning phase. For this purpose, 24 newborn Simmental calves in a private farm were used as animal material. Calves given colostrum for the first 3 days after birth were divided into two similar groups according to their birth weight and gender. Differently from the control group, the calves in the experimental group (propolis) were given orally 4 ml/day propolis extract (30%; EEP). Weekly nasal discharge, cough, eye, ear and general health scoring, rectal body temperature and fecal pH measurement, daily fecal scoring and diarrhea day follow-up were performed for each calf in the study, which lasted up to 60 days of age. Feces samples taken from all calves at the beginning and at the end of the study were evaluated for Lactobacillus spp. and Bifidobacter spp. At the end of the study; statistical differences were found between the groups in favor of the propolis group in terms of body weight gain (BWG), feed conversion ratio (FCR), body weight (BW), withers height (WH), rump height (RH) and chest depth (CD) (P < 0.05 ) . At the end of the study, propolis extract positively affected the number of days with diarrhea and feces scores (P 0.05 ). In addition, it was observed that the number of calves that needed to be monitored in terms of health status was less in the experimental group. Dairy calf propolis performance health fecal score Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Propolis is a sticky organic substance that is formed by mixing some beeswax and biochemically changing resinous substances collected by worker bees from tree bark, sprouts, branches, and buds of plants, and is semi-solid at room temperature (Kara et al., 2014 ). Propolis has antioxidant, antimicrobial, cytotoxic, anti-mutagenic and immunomodulatory effects. These effects are due to its rich flavonoid, phenolic acid and terpenoid contents (Kadhim et al., 2018 ). It has been reported that propolis, which can also be used as a feed additive, positively affects the performance, digestive enzyme activity, intestinal microbiota, and morphology, and also increases the immune response in studies conducted with poultry (Kaèániová et al ., 2012; Zafarnejad et al., 2017 ; Prakatur et al., 2019 ). In addition, its positive effects due to its flavor enhancer and antioxidant and antimicrobial properties have also been reported (Şahin et al ., 2003; Denli et al., 2005 ). Studies on this subject in ruminants are limited. In a study conducted in sheep and lambs, it was reported that raw Chinese propolis had a positive effect on milk yield and quality of sheep, and it significantly affected immunity and performance in lambs (Shedeed at al ., 2019). In another study conducted with suckling lambs, the addition of propolis (150 µL/kg of BW/d) to milk positively affected antimicrobial, antioxidant and immune parameters as well as performance (Ceceree et al ., 2021). Slanzon et al. ( 2019 ) reported that propolis improved the fecal score in calves, decreased the number of days with diarrhea and reduced veterinary expenses for diarrhea. One of the most important problems of the cattle industry in the world and in Turkey is the high rate of calf losses (Karslı et al ., 2018). In order to solve this problem, it is important to determine the effectiveness of propolis, which is considered as an alternative natural feed additive to antibiotics, in calves. In this study, it was aimed to investigate the effect of ethanol extract of propolis, which is a natural beekeeping product, on performance, fecal score and general health status of preweaning calves. Material And Methods Preration of Ethanol Extract Propolis The method used by Sorucu ( 2015 ) and Erdoğan et al. (2011) was used for propolis extraction. Raw propolis was first frozen at -20 ºC, then ground into powder with a coffee grinder (Delonghi® Kg49, Hempshire, UK). After the powdered propolis was thoroughly mixed, 2 g was weighed for extraction and taken into a 50 ml Erlenmeyer flask. Then, 20 ml of 70% (ethanol/water v/v) ethyl alcohol (Merck®, Darmstadt, Germany) was added. The sample was first mixed for 1 hour (Nüve® SL-35, Ankara), then kept in an ultrasonic bath (Bandelin® Sonorex RK100, Berlin, Germany) for 30 minutes, then transferred to the mixer again and mixed for 30 minutes. The mixture was filtered first with normal filter paper, then with Watman filter paper (Watman® No: 1, Buckinghamshire, UK) and the foreign bodies and wax in the propolis were removed. The obtained propolis filtrate was taken into glass tubes and 70% ethyl alcohol used as a solvent in the vacuum centrifugal evaporation system (Jouan®, RC 10–10) was evaporated. Animals, Housing, and Management In this study, 24 Simmental calves born between 24.09.2021 and 14.10.2021 in a private livestock farm in Saray District of Tekirdağ were used. The calves given colostrum for the first 3 days after birth were divided into two groups as control and ethanol extract propolis group (treatment) with similar weights and genders and were taken to individual calf huts. Each group consisted of 5 females, 7 males, a total of 12 calves. On the 4th day of the experiment, 4 ml of propolis ethanol extract (extracted in 70% ethanol, 300 mg/ml propolis) was given orally after morning feeding to each calf in the treatment group for 56 days, until the age of 60 days. The calves were given 5 L of milk replacer (Eurolac-Vitamilk Milk Replacer) daily for up to 15 days, 6 L for 15–60 days, in two meals (in equal amounts in the morning and evening), at 38°C. After mixing 10% finely chopped alfalfa hay into the calf starter feed, it was given to the calves ad-libitum until the end of the experiment. Daily feed consumption was determined by weighing the increased starter feed and alfalfa mixture given to the calves (Ulbay SF-400 precision balance 10 kg, 1 g sensitivity). In order to determine the standardization of calf starter and roughage used in the study, nutrient analyzes were performed with the Weende analysis method (AOAC, 2002). In NDF and ADF analysis, Van Soest et al. ( 1991 ) method was used. The daily feed intake (FI - mix of alfalfa and calf starter feed) and dry matter intake (DMI - alfalfa, calf starter feed and milk replacer) amounts of each calf taken to the individual calf hut were recorded from the 4th day of their trial until the 60th day from the end of the trial. Weekly body weight gain (BWG) and feed conversion ratio (FCR) were calculated. In addition, body weight (BW), body length (BL), height at withers (WH), rump height (RH), chest circumference (CC), and chest depth (CD) were determined weekly using a measuring tape and measuring stick by Larson et al., ( 1977 ) was measured as reported. Individual calf huts consist of a 130 cm x 160 cm x 100 cm polyethylene cabin and a 130 cm x 160 cm x 140 cm fenced crawl space. The huts are placed on a concrete floor in a closed area using straw as a litter, avoiding contact with other calves. A feeder, a drinker and a bottle shield were found in each calf hut. Health and Fecal Score Weekly fecal scores of calves, from the age of 4 days until the age of 60 days when they left the study, were examined by the same researcher at the same time every day by Araujo et al. ( 2015 ) and Batmaz ( 2015 ) based on the 5-point scoring system (1- solid; 2- soft and well-defined; 3- soft and unclear; 4- in the form of diarrhea; 5- in the form of diarrhea containing blood and/or mucus). By taking the average of fecal scores every 7 days, weekly evaluation data were obtained. Health data including body temperature, cough, nasal discharge, eye, ear and fecal scores; Evaluated weekly based on a score according to the University of Wisconsin-Madison Calf Health Scoring Chart ( https://www.vetmed.wisc.edu/-fapm/wpcontent/uploads/2020/01/group_pen_respiratory_ scoring_chart.pdf). In addition, the number of days with diarrhea, milk sucking, and feed intake were monitored daily and the calves included in any treatment protocol were recorded with the treatment protocol. Evaluation of general health status was classified as “normal, monitor or treat” by evaluating all health scores and the general condition of the calves together (McGurik, 2013). At the beginning and end of the study, feces samples were taken from all calves and microbiological analyzes were made. In these samples, Lactobacillus spp. and Bifidobacterium spp. , which are beneficial microorganisms of the digestive system, were counted in Istanbul-Cerrahpaşa University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Microbiology. Feces samples were diluted from 10 − 2 to 10 − 6 in 10-fold serial dilution, and at each dilution, the bulk sowing method was used for Lactobacillus spp. enumeration and the spread sowing method for Bifidobacterium spp. enumeration. Statistical Analysis SPSS (25.0) package program was used in the statistical analysis of the obtained data. The body measurements, dry matter consumption, fecal score, fecal pH and the number of days with diarrhea obtained in the experiment were analyzed by the GLM (General Linear Model- Univariate Analysis of Variance) method. The effect of treatment, gender, and treatment*gender was evaluated. Only the treatment effect was investigated by analyzing the health-related features scored and microbiological analysis results with the Mann-Whitney U test. Results The dry matter (DM) of the starter feed given to the calves is 86.83% and the nutritional values are 22.92% crude protein, 3.78% crude fat, 7.12% crude fiber, 7.19% crude ash and 3080 kcal in DM It is /kg metabolic energy, and its nutrient content was measured as 29.07% Starch, 24.44% NDF and 8.43% ADF in DM. In roughage, 89.01% DM and nutritional values were found to be 16.23% crude protein, 1.52% crude fat, 40.77% crude fiber and 8.24% crude ash in DM, and the nutrient content was 55.12% NDF and 41.71% ADF in DM. The first and last measurements of DMI, BWG, BW, BL, WH, RH, CC and CD are given in Table 1. Feed intake (calf starter feed with alfaalfa) was measured as 16635.96 g and 16946.66 g in the control and EEP groups, respectively, and DMI as 54715.56 g and 54954.16 g, respectively. When the effect of treatment, gender and treatment*gender was compared, no statistical difference was found (P > 0.05 ). However, in terms of BWG and FCR, it is seen that there is a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05 ) in the treatment group, with higher BWG (10.08% higher than the control group) and lower FCR (8.24% lower than the control group). When the effect of gender was evaluated, it was observed that the BWG and FCR of female calves were better than male calves in the pre-weaning period (P < 0.05 ). In terms of BW, WH, RH and CD measurements, statistical differences were found between the groups in favor of the treatment group (P < 0.05 ). When the gender effect was evaluated, it was observed that although the BW, BL, WH and RH measurements of the female calves used in the experiment were lower at the beginning of the trial compared to the male calves, there was no difference in the post-trial measurements. Even if it is not statistically significant (P > 0.05 ) , it is seen that the end-trial measurements of female calves are larger. The effect of treatment*gender was found to be insignificant in all body measurements (P > 0.05 ). There was no statistical difference between the groups in terms of fecal score at the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 7th weeks (P > 0.05 ) . In the fecal scoring determined at the 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 8th weeks, feces were found to be more fluid in the control group (P < 0.05 ) (Fig. 1). When feces monitoring is evaluated in terms of total diarrheal days, it is seen that the number of diarrheal days in the propolis group (Control: 1.9 days/number of calves, propolis: 0.59 days/number of calves) with a statistically significant difference (P 0.05 ) , there was a difference between the groups in the fecal pH determined at the 6th, 7th, and 8th weeks (P 0.05 ). When the effects of treatment, gender, and treatment*gender were compared in terms of Lactobacillus spp. and Bifidobacter spp. in sterile feces samples taken on the 4th day of the experiment and the 60th day of the experiment, no statistical difference was found (P > 0.05 ). There was no statistical difference between the groups in terms of rectal body temperature, cough score, nasal discharge score, eye score and ear score and general health score determined every week from the 4th day they were included in the trial until the 60th day of the trial (P > 0.05 ). However, although the rate of calves requiring treatment was the same in both groups, it was observed that the number of calves requiring monitoring was lower in the treatment group (Fig. 3) . Discussion In this study, oral administration of 300 mg/ml propolis extract prepared in 70% ethanol to calves showed positive effects in favor of the propolis group in terms of BWG and FCR (P < 0.05). BW, WH, RH and CD measurements were also statistically significantly higher in the propolis group than in the control (P < 0.05 ) (Table 1). Although the starting weights were lower, higher BWG and FCR were found in female calves. The findings of this study are consistent with the findings of Yücel et al. ( 2015 ), who reported that 2 cc (500 mg/ml propolis prepared with 70% ethanol) propolis positively affects the body parameters of calves. Yücel et al. ( 2015 ), also observed that significant differences in BW, BL and WH parameters, especially between the control and treatment groups of females (P < 0.05 ). Kupczyński et al. ( 2012 ) added EEP (containing 10% propolis to 2 ml and 4 ml/day) to milk replacer feeds in their study on 45 calves, and it was statistically significant (P < 0.05 ) higher BW was obtained. In a study by Zawadzki et al. (2011), it was observed that BW and FCR were improved in the group consuming EEP when they gave feeds containing monensin (300 mg/animal/day) and propolis extract (35 g/animal/day) to calves (P < 0.05 ) . In another study on 20 Holstein calves, high doses (3.6 x 10 − 3 g/kg BW) of 300 mg/g EEP prepared in 80% ethanol increased BW (P 0,05 ) (Yaghoubi et al.; 2008 ). Tolon et al. ( 2002 ) found that when they orally administered 50% EEP to calves, BWG was positively affected in females (P < 0.05 ) , but not in males. Thus, they showed that propolis can also be affected by gender differences. In the same study, the mean body weight gain at the end of the trial in the group given propolis was found to be 46.07 g/day higher than the control group (P < 0.05 ) . In contrast, Slanzon et al. ( 2019 ) reported that EEP additive (4 ml, 300 mg/ml red propolis) mixed with milk replacer feed had no effect on feed intake and performance in their study on 32 newborn calves. Sarker et al. (2010), in a study using antibiotics (neomycin 110 ppm), ilit (2%) and propolis (0.05%) in weaned Hanwoo Korean calves, reported that although propolis had a partial effect on growth potential and feed consumption, its effect was insignificant compared to the antibiotic group (P > 0.05 ) . It is thought that the source, amount, and alcohol dilution rates of raw propolis used in the studies may be effective in these different results obtained because of the application. When the EEP application is evaluated in terms of fecal score, and diarrhea cases; in this study, propolis extract decreased feces consistency and positively affected the number of days with diarrhea and fecal scores ( P < 0.05) (Figs. 1–2). In the study of Yücel et al. ( 2015 ), fecal score in the propolis group (500 mg/ml propolis prepared with 2 cc 70% ethanol) was significantly different from the control group (P < 0.05 ) . It was reported by the researchers that the health indicator of the calves in the propolis group remained with a score close to 1 after weaning, and diarrhea cases were not observed during the suckling period. Kupczyński et al. ( 2012 ) also observed similar results (2 ml and 4 ml/day milk replacer containing 10% propolis). In particular, the application of propolis at the amount of 4 ml/day caused a significant (P ≤ 0.01 ) decrease in the evaluation of diarrhea intensity on the score scale. It was reported by the investigators that the general condition of the calves and the assessment of dehydration were better in calves given both doses of the preparation and that typical acute clinical symptoms of digestive system disorders were not observed during the entire study period. Slanzon et al. ( 2019 ) observed that the addition of EEP (4 ml, 300 mg/ml red propolis) mixed with milk replacer feed reduced fecal score, diarrhea days, and diarrhea cases requiring treatment ( P < 0.0001). The results obtained in this study support the results obtained in the other studies. Although the digestive tract of newborn calves is sterile, Escherichia coli bacteria rapidly colonize all parts of the digestive tract within the first 8 hours after birth. Lactobacillus spp. and Streptococcus spp. species can be detected in the digestive tract 24 hours after birth. In a healthy animal, Lactobacillus spp. is rapidly colonized instead of coliforms (Wallace et al. , 2007). However, high colonization of coliform bacteria and low Lactobacillus spp. level in the digestive tract cause diarrhea cases that are frequently encountered in the rearing of young animals and cause serious economic losses (Görgülü et al. 2003 ). The main bacteria responsible for gastrointestinal infections have been identified as Escherichia coli, Klebsiella oxytoca and Enterococcus faecalis . As a result of the study conducted by Sosin-Bzducha et al (2012), they concluded that the application of higher doses of propolis in a shorter time provides a better recovery and a longer supplementation is needed at lower doses. In in vitro studies, it has been determined that EEP has antimicrobial activities on the test microorganisms used ( Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Salmonella typhimurium, Proteus vulgaris, Candida ablicans ) (da Silva et al. 2018 , Bakkaloğlu et al. 2019). No study was found on the effectiveness of EEP on beneficial microorganisms in the calf digestive system. However, in a study conducted on rats (El-Shobaki et al. 2011 ), it was determined that the number of Bifidobacterum spp. increased, and the number of coliforms decreased in the EEP group. In this study, no difference was found in the experimental and control groups in terms of Lactobacillus spp. and Bifidobacter spp. species. It is thought that this situation may be related to the amount of propolis used or the duration of use. With the fermentation of prebiotics by beneficial microorganisms, the amount of volatile fatty acids in the intestine increases and the intestinal pH decreases. This suppresses the development of potential pathogens in the gut (De Vrese et al. , 2007). In the study, it was observed that fecal pH decreased significantly (P < 0.05 ) in the propolis group, especially after the 6th week. As a result of this study, it was determined that the administration of ethanol extract propolis to calves in the preweaning period had a positive effect on performance and fecal structure, and decreased feces fluidity and diarrhea. These results led to the conclusion that propolis extract has the potential to positively affect the growth performance and health status of suckling calves. Declarations Authors Contribution Statement AK, and NK conceived and designed research. AK conducted experiments and evaluated health records. AIK performed microbiological analyses o feces. AK, and NK wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Data availability The dataset of the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Acknowledgments This study was funded by Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit of Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa. Project number: TDK-2021-35672. Ethics approval All procedures of the study were approved by the Animal Experiments Ethic Committee of Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine (Approval No: 2020/34 and Date: 28/12/2020). The procedures performed in the study were also in accordance with the national legislation. Consent to participate All authors consented to participation. Consent to publication All authors consented to submit the manuscript to the journal. Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. References AOAC International. 2002. Official Methods of Analysis. 18th ed. AOAC Int., Gaithersburg, MD. Araujo, G., Yunta, C,, Terre, M., Mereu, A., Ipharraguerre, I. & Bach, A., 2015. Intestinal permeability and incidence of diarrhea in newborn calves. Journal of Dairy Science, 98: 7309–7317. Bakkaloğlu, Z. & Arıcı, M., 2019. Farklı Çözücülerle Propolis Ekstraksiyonunun Toplam Fenolik İçeriği, Antioksidan Kapasite ve Antimikrobiyal Aktivite Üzerine Etkileri. Akademik Gıda Dergisi 17(4) 538–545. Batmaz, H., 2015. Buzağı Yönetimi ve Sağlığı. Editör: BATMAZ H, Sığırlarda Sürü Sağlığı ve Yönetimi, 1. Baskı, Alfa Aktüel Yayınları, Bursa, pp: 120–153. Cecere, B.G.O., da Silva, A.S., Molosse, V.L., Alba, D.F., Leal, K.W., da Rosa, G,. Pereira, W.A.B., da Silva, A.D., Schetinger, M.R.C., Kempka, A.P., Nunes, A., Maraschin, M., Araujo, D.N., Deolindo, G.L. & Vedovatto, M., 2021. Addition of propolis to milk improves lactating lamb’s growth: effect on antimicrobial, antioxidant and immune responses in animals. Small Ruminant Research, doi: 10.1016/j.smallrumres . Vol.194. 106265 Da Silva, C., Prasniewski, A., Calegari, M.A., de Lima, V.A. & Oldoni, T.L., 2018. Determination of total phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity of ethanolic extracts of propolis using ATR–FT-IR spectroscopy and chemometrics. Food Analytical Methods, 11(7), 2013–2021. De Vrese, M. & Marteau, P.R., 2007. Probiotics and prebiotics: effects on diarrhea. Journal of Nutrition, 137 (2): 803–811. Denli, M., Cankaya, S., Silici, S., Okan, F. & Uluocak, A.N., 2005. Effect of Dietary Addition of Turkish Propolis on the Growth Performance, Carcass Characteristics and Serum Variables of Quail (Coturnix Coturnix Japanica). Asian- Australasian Journal of Animal Science (AJAS), 18 (6): 848–854. El-Shobaki, F.A., Refaat, O.G., Saleh, Z.A., Abd-Elftah, A.B.S. & El-Hagar, E.F., 2011. The effect of consuming a cake containing propolis on gut micro flora and toxicity. Journal American Science,7(7): 421–9. Erdogan, S., Ates, B., Durmaz, G., Yılmaz, I. & Seckin, T., 2011. Pressurized liquid extraction of phenolic compounds from Anatolia propolis and their radical scavenging capacities. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 49:1592–1597. Görgülü, M., Siuta, A., Öngel, E., Yurtseven, S. & Kutlu, H.R., 2003. Effects of probiotic on growing performance and health of calves. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 6(7): 651–654. Kačániová, M., Rovná, K., Arpášová, H., Cuboň, J., Hleba, L., Pochop, J., Kunová, S. & Haščík P., 2012. In vitro and in vivo antimicrobial activity of propolis on the microbiota from gastrointestinal tract of chickens. Journal of Environmental Science and Healh, 47(11):1665–1671. Kadhim, M.J., Los, A., Olszewski, K. & Borsuk, G., 2018. Propolis in Livestock Nutrition. Entomol Ornithol Herpetol., 7: 207. Kara, K., Kocaoğlu Güçlü, B. & Karakaş Oğuz, F., 2014. Propolis ve Fenolik Asitlerin Ruminant Beslemede Kullanımı. Erciyes Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 11: 43–53. Karslı, M.A. & Evci, Ş., 2018. The Importance of Cattle and Calf Nutrition in Preventing Calf Losses. Lalahan Hayvancılık Araştırma Enstitüsü Dergisi, 58:23–34 Kupczyński, R., Adamski, M., Falta, D. & Roman, A., 2012. The efficiency of propolis in post-colostral dairy calves. Archiv fur Tierzucht 55(4): 315–324. Larson, L.L., Owen, F.G., Albright, J.L., Appleman, R.D., Lamb, R.C. & Muller, L.D., 1977. Guidelines toward more uniformity in measuring and reporting calf experimental data. Journal of Dairy Science, 60(6), 989–991. McGuirk, S., 2013. Calf Health Scoring Chart. University of Wisconsin, School of Veterinary Medicine. https://www.vetmed.wisc.edu/dms/fapm/fapmtools/8calf/calf_health_scoring_ chart.pdf (Accessed 2 December 2020). Prakatur, I., Miskulin, M., Pavic, M., Marjanovic, K., Blazicevic, V., Miskulin, I. & Domacinovic M., 2019. Intestinal Morphology in Broiler Chickens Supplemented with Propolis and Bee Pollen. Animals (Basel). 31;9(6):301. Sahin, A., Baylan, M., Sahinler, N., Gül, A., 2003. Propolisin Japon Bıldırcınlarında Besi Performansı ve Karkas Özelliklerine Etkisi. Uludag Bee Journal, 3 (4): 42–44. Sarker, M.S.K. & Yang, C.J. 2010. Propolis and illite as feed additivies on performance and blood profiles of pre-weaning Hanwoo calves. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 9(19): 2526–31. Shedeed, H.A., Farrag, B., Elwakeel, E.A., El-Hamid, I., & El-Rayes, M.A., 2019. Propolis supplementation improved productivity, oxidative status, and immune response of Barki ewes and lambs. Veterinary World, 12(6), 834–843. Slanzon, G.S., Toledo, A.F., Silva, A.P., Coelho, M.G., da Silva, M.D., Cezar, A.M. & Bittar, M.M., 2019. Red propolis as an additive for preweaned dairy calves: Effect on growth performance, health, and selected blood parameters. Journal of Dairy Science, 102(10):8952–8962. Sorucu, A., 2015. Marmara Bölgesindeki Propolislerde Biyolojik Etkisi Olan Fenolik Madde ve Miktarlarının Mevsim ve Rakım Farkına Bağlı Olarak Belirlenmesi. T. C. Uludağ Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Doktora Tezi, S:44. Sosin-Bzducha, E. & Strzetelski J., 2012. Propolis źródłem flawonoidów korzystnych dla zdrowia i produkcyjności bydła. Wiadomości Zootechniczne, 50(2), 23–28. Tolon, B., Önenç, A., Kaya, A., Altan, Ö. 2002. Effects of propolis on growth of calves.1st German Congress for Bee Products and Apitherapy. 23–24 March, Passau-Germany.P.71. Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J.B., & Lewis. B.A., 1991. Methods fordietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74:3583–3597 Wallace, R.J., Newbold, C.J., 2007. Microbial feed additives for ruminants. Biotechnology in Animal Feeds and Animal Feeding. Published Online, 101–125 Yaghoubi, S.M.J., Ghorbani, G.R., Rahmani, H.R. & Nikkhah A., 2008. Growth, weaning performance, and blood indicators of humoral immunity in Holstein calves fed flavonoids. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 92: 456–462. Yücel, B., Onenc, A., Kaya, A. and Altan, O., 2015. Effects of Propolis Administration on Growth Performance and Neonatal Diarrhea of Calves. SOJ Dairy and Veterinary Science, 1(1): 102. Zafarnejad, K., Afzali, N. & Rajabzadeh, M., 2017. Effect of bee glue on growth performance and immune response of broiler chickens. Journal of Applied Animal Research, 45: 280–284. Zawadzkii, F., Prado, I.N., Marques, J.A., Zeoula, L.M., Rotta, P.P., Sestari, B.B., Valero, M.V. & Rivaroli DC., 2011. Sodium monensin or propolis extract in the diets of feedlot-finished bulls: effects on animal perfomance and carcass characteristics. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences, 20: 16–25. Table Table 1. Feed intake and performance of calves supplemented or not with propolis extract (4 mL/d of EEP) Measurements Treatment P value 2 Control Propolis 1 SEM Treatment Gender Treatment*Gender FI (g) 16635.96 16946.66 114.54 0.098 0.059 0.999 FI (g/day) 297.07 302.62 2.05 DMI (g) 54715.56 54954.16 97.36 DMI (g/day) (0-60) 911.93 915.90 1.74 BWG (kg) 30.06 b 33.09 a 0.45 0.001 0.032 0.361 BWG (g/day) (0-60) 501.15 551.65 a 8,04 FCR 1.82 b 1.67 a 0,02 0.001 0.035 0.399 BW (kg) Initial 38.31 38.26 0,12 0.789 0.001 0.454 Final 68.37 b 71.35 a 0,48 0.001 0.36 0504 BL (cm) Initial 68.06 67.70 0,15 0.108 0.007 0.587 Final 85.58 85.59 0,25 0.965 0.933 0.085 WH (cm) Initial 75.20 75.11 0,29 0.835 0.009 0.681 Final 85.20 b 87.40 a 0,26 0.001 0.032 0.079 RH (cm) Initial 77.52 77.38 0,27 0.732 0.006 0.787 Final 88.35 b 90.56 a 0,26 0.001 0.058 0.173 CC (cm) Initial 74.20 73.87 0,20 0.246 0.690 0.851 Final 88.55 88.65 0,18 0.710 0.608 0.654 CD (cm) Initial 27.88 27.86 0,14 0.914 0.746 0.914 Final 35.61 b 36.58 a 0,16 0.001 0.627 0.689 1 Propolis = 4 mL/d of ethanolic extract of propolis (30%). 2 P<0.05 values are statistically significant. a,b Means of the measurements in the same row, with different letters differ significantly (P<0.05). Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 16 Mar, 2023 Read the published version in Tropical Animal Health and Production → Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 28 Jul, 2022 Reviewers invited by journal 30 Jun, 2022 Editor assigned by journal 25 Jun, 2022 First submitted to journal 20 May, 2022 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-1676290","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":117516412,"identity":"ae39d42b-5127-4388-9c90-0740af793aca","order_by":0,"name":"Ali KABİLOĞLU","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1579-1901","institution":"Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa: Istanbul Universitesi-Cerrahpasa","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ali","middleName":"","lastName":"KABİLOĞLU","suffix":""},{"id":117516413,"identity":"554ca5fd-a3b9-44f7-8830-2b9f2935e39c","order_by":1,"name":"Neşe KOCABAĞLI","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"İstanbul Üniversitesi-Cerrahpaşa: Istanbul Universitesi-Cerrahpasa","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Neşe","middleName":"","lastName":"KOCABAĞLI","suffix":""},{"id":117516414,"identity":"0b92ee50-3686-42ae-8231-a35603d79b18","order_by":2,"name":"Ayşe Ilgın KEKEÇ","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"İstanbul Üniversitesi-Cerrahpaşa: Istanbul Universitesi-Cerrahpasa","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ayşe","middleName":"Ilgın","lastName":"KEKEÇ","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2022-05-20 10:14:40","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-1676290/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1676290/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-023-03542-2","type":"published","date":"2023-03-16T20:02:30+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":23545965,"identity":"b271455c-30ae-4228-b087-be8c1fedee76","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2022-07-06 17:49:56","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":53621,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFecal score of calves supplemented or not with propolis extract (4 mL/d of EEP)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1676290/v1/a10e4e9b87e996b4e2585cfc.jpg"},{"id":23546469,"identity":"be66992b-3dce-4d85-aac8-add352d48bc9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2022-07-06 17:54:56","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":28054,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eNumber of days with diarrhea per calf\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1676290/v1/887a63381a92f2b45a1dddc5.jpg"},{"id":23545966,"identity":"bcd6c73a-fd55-40bd-a0af-d5133afeb692","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2022-07-06 17:49:56","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":78056,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eGeneral health status of calves supplemented or not with propolis extract (4 mL/d of EEP)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1676290/v1/e895276bc488833fc7ccb4d6.jpg"},{"id":44723037,"identity":"879f98d5-5ba1-45c3-be47-6d16ed935f79","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-10-16 20:11:36","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":416944,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1676290/v1/de9a45a1-c519-4309-8db5-387b3814e7e8.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"","formattedTitle":"Effects of Propolis Extract on Growth Performance and Health Condition of Dairy Calves","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003ePropolis is a sticky organic substance that is formed by mixing some beeswax and biochemically changing resinous substances collected by worker bees from tree bark, sprouts, branches, and buds of plants, and is semi-solid at room temperature (Kara et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Propolis has antioxidant, antimicrobial, cytotoxic, anti-mutagenic and immunomodulatory effects. These effects are due to its rich flavonoid, phenolic acid and terpenoid contents (Kadhim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt has been reported that propolis, which can also be used as a feed additive, positively affects the performance, digestive enzyme activity, intestinal microbiota, and morphology, and also increases the immune response in studies conducted with poultry (Ka\u0026egrave;\u0026aacute;niov\u0026aacute; \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2012; Zafarnejad et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Prakatur et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, its positive effects due to its flavor enhancer and antioxidant and antimicrobial properties have also been reported (Şahin \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2003; Denli et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Studies on this subject in ruminants are limited. In a study conducted in sheep and lambs, it was reported that raw Chinese propolis had a positive effect on milk yield and quality of sheep, and it significantly affected immunity and performance in lambs (Shedeed \u003cem\u003eat al\u003c/em\u003e., 2019). In another study conducted with suckling lambs, the addition of propolis (150 \u0026micro;L/kg of BW/d) to milk positively affected antimicrobial, antioxidant and immune parameters as well as performance (Ceceree \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2021). Slanzon et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) reported that propolis improved the fecal score in calves, decreased the number of days with diarrhea and reduced veterinary expenses for diarrhea.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne of the most important problems of the cattle industry in the world and in Turkey is the high rate of calf losses (Karslı \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2018). In order to solve this problem, it is important to determine the effectiveness of propolis, which is considered as an alternative natural feed additive to antibiotics, in calves. In this study, it was aimed to investigate the effect of ethanol extract of propolis, which is a natural beekeeping product, on performance, fecal score and general health status of preweaning calves.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Material And Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePreration of Ethanol Extract Propolis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe method used by Sorucu (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) and Erdoğan et al. (2011) was used for propolis extraction. Raw propolis was first frozen at -20 \u0026ordm;C, then ground into powder with a coffee grinder (Delonghi\u0026reg; Kg49, Hempshire, UK). After the powdered propolis was thoroughly mixed, 2 g was weighed for extraction and taken into a 50 ml Erlenmeyer flask. Then, 20 ml of 70% (ethanol/water v/v) ethyl alcohol (Merck\u0026reg;, Darmstadt, Germany) was added. The sample was first mixed for 1 hour (N\u0026uuml;ve\u0026reg; SL-35, Ankara), then kept in an ultrasonic bath (Bandelin\u0026reg; Sonorex RK100, Berlin, Germany) for 30 minutes, then transferred to the mixer again and mixed for 30 minutes. The mixture was filtered first with normal filter paper, then with Watman filter paper (Watman\u0026reg; No: 1, Buckinghamshire, UK) and the foreign bodies and wax in the propolis were removed. The obtained propolis filtrate was taken into glass tubes and 70% ethyl alcohol used as a solvent in the vacuum centrifugal evaporation system (Jouan\u0026reg;, RC 10\u0026ndash;10) was evaporated.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAnimals, Housing, and Management\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this study, 24 Simmental calves born between 24.09.2021 and 14.10.2021 in a private livestock farm in Saray District of Tekirdağ were used. The calves given colostrum for the first 3 days after birth were divided into two groups as control and ethanol extract propolis group (treatment) with similar weights and genders and were taken to individual calf huts. Each group consisted of 5 females, 7 males, a total of 12 calves. On the 4th day of the experiment, 4 ml of propolis ethanol extract (extracted in 70% ethanol, 300 mg/ml propolis) was given orally after morning feeding to each calf in the treatment group for 56 days, until the age of 60 days.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe calves were given 5 L of milk replacer (Eurolac-Vitamilk Milk Replacer) daily for up to 15 days, 6 L for 15\u0026ndash;60 days, in two meals (in equal amounts in the morning and evening), at 38\u0026deg;C. After mixing 10% finely chopped alfalfa hay into the calf starter feed, it was given to the calves \u003cem\u003ead-libitum\u003c/em\u003e until the end of the experiment. Daily feed consumption was determined by weighing the increased starter feed and alfalfa mixture given to the calves (Ulbay SF-400 precision balance 10 kg, 1 g sensitivity). In order to determine the standardization of calf starter and roughage used in the study, nutrient analyzes were performed with the Weende analysis method (AOAC, 2002). In NDF and ADF analysis, Van Soest et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e) method was used. The daily feed intake (FI - mix of alfalfa and calf starter feed) and dry matter intake (DMI - alfalfa, calf starter feed and milk replacer) amounts of each calf taken to the individual calf hut were recorded from the 4th day of their trial until the 60th day from the end of the trial. Weekly body weight gain (BWG) and feed conversion ratio (FCR) were calculated. In addition, body weight (BW), body length (BL), height at withers (WH), rump height (RH), chest circumference (CC), and chest depth (CD) were determined weekly using a measuring tape and measuring stick by Larson et al., (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1977\u003c/span\u003e) was measured as reported.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndividual calf huts consist of a 130 cm x 160 cm x 100 cm polyethylene cabin and a 130 cm x 160 cm x 140 cm fenced crawl space. The huts are placed on a concrete floor in a closed area using straw as a litter, avoiding contact with other calves. A feeder, a drinker and a bottle shield were found in each calf hut.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eHealth and Fecal Score\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWeekly fecal scores of calves, from the age of 4 days until the age of 60 days when they left the study, were examined by the same researcher at the same time every day by Araujo et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) and Batmaz (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) based on the 5-point scoring system (1- solid; 2- soft and well-defined; 3- soft and unclear; 4- in the form of diarrhea; 5- in the form of diarrhea containing blood and/or mucus). By taking the average of fecal scores every 7 days, weekly evaluation data were obtained.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHealth data including body temperature, cough, nasal discharge, eye, ear and fecal scores; Evaluated weekly based on a score according to the University of Wisconsin-Madison Calf Health Scoring Chart (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.vetmed.wisc.edu/-fapm/wpcontent/uploads/2020/01/group_pen_respiratory_\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.vetmed.wisc.edu/-fapm/wpcontent/uploads/2020/01/group_pen_respiratory_\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e scoring_chart.pdf). In addition, the number of days with diarrhea, milk sucking, and feed intake were monitored daily and the calves included in any treatment protocol were recorded with the treatment protocol. Evaluation of general health status was classified as \u0026ldquo;normal, monitor or treat\u0026rdquo; by evaluating all health scores and the general condition of the calves together (McGurik, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the beginning and end of the study, feces samples were taken from all calves and microbiological analyzes were made. In these samples, \u003cem\u003eLactobacillus spp.\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eBifidobacterium spp.\u003c/em\u003e, which are beneficial microorganisms of the digestive system, were counted in Istanbul-Cerrahpaşa University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Microbiology. Feces samples were diluted from 10\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/sup\u003e to 10\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;6\u003c/sup\u003e in 10-fold serial dilution, and at each dilution, the bulk sowing method was used for \u003cem\u003eLactobacillus spp.\u003c/em\u003e enumeration and the spread sowing method for \u003cem\u003eBifidobacterium spp.\u003c/em\u003e enumeration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStatistical Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e SPSS (25.0) package program was used in the statistical analysis of the obtained data. The body measurements, dry matter consumption, fecal score, fecal pH and the number of days with diarrhea obtained in the experiment were analyzed by the GLM (General Linear Model- Univariate Analysis of Variance) method. The effect of treatment, gender, and treatment*gender was evaluated. Only the treatment effect was investigated by analyzing the health-related features scored and microbiological analysis results with the Mann-Whitney U test.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe dry matter (DM) of the starter feed given to the calves is 86.83% and the nutritional values are 22.92% crude protein, 3.78% crude fat, 7.12% crude fiber, 7.19% crude ash and 3080 kcal in DM It is /kg metabolic energy, and its nutrient content was measured as 29.07% Starch, 24.44% NDF and 8.43% ADF in DM. In roughage, 89.01% DM and nutritional values were found to be 16.23% crude protein, 1.52% crude fat, 40.77% crude fiber and 8.24% crude ash in DM, and the nutrient content was 55.12% NDF and 41.71% ADF in DM.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe first and last measurements of DMI, BWG, BW, BL, WH, RH, CC and CD are given in \u003cb\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;1.\u003c/b\u003e Feed intake (calf starter feed with alfaalfa) was measured as 16635.96 g and 16946.66 g in the control and EEP groups, respectively, and DMI as 54715.56 g and 54954.16 g, respectively. When the effect of treatment, gender and treatment*gender was compared, no statistical difference was found \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003cem\u003e).\u003c/em\u003e However, in terms of BWG and FCR, it is seen that there is a statistically significant difference \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e in the treatment group, with higher BWG (10.08% higher than the control group) and lower FCR (8.24% lower than the control group). When the effect of gender was evaluated, it was observed that the BWG and FCR of female calves were better than male calves in the pre-weaning period \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003cem\u003e).\u003c/em\u003e In terms of BW, WH, RH and CD measurements, statistical differences were found between the groups in favor of the treatment group \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003cem\u003e).\u003c/em\u003e When the gender effect was evaluated, it was observed that although the BW, BL, WH and RH measurements of the female calves used in the experiment were lower at the beginning of the trial compared to the male calves, there was no difference in the post-trial measurements. Even if it is not statistically significant \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e, it is seen that the end-trial measurements of female calves are larger. The effect of treatment*gender was found to be insignificant in all body measurements \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003cem\u003e).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere was no statistical difference between the groups in terms of fecal score at the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 7th weeks \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e. In the fecal scoring determined at the 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 8th weeks, feces were found to be more fluid in the control group \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e(Fig.\u0026nbsp;1).\u003c/b\u003e When feces monitoring is evaluated in terms of total diarrheal days, it is seen that the number of diarrheal days in the propolis group (Control: 1.9 days/number of calves, propolis: 0.59 days/number of calves) with a statistically significant difference \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e(Fig.\u0026nbsp;2)\u003c/b\u003e. While there was no difference between the groups in terms of fecal pH until the 5th week \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e, there was a difference between the groups in the fecal pH determined at the 6th, 7th, and 8th weeks \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e. The effect of gender and treatment*gender was found to be insignificant in all fecal data \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003cem\u003e).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen the effects of treatment, gender, and treatment*gender were compared in terms of \u003cem\u003eLactobacillus spp.\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eBifidobacter spp.\u003c/em\u003e in sterile feces samples taken on the 4th day of the experiment and the 60th day of the experiment, no statistical difference was found \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003cem\u003e).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere was no statistical difference between the groups in terms of rectal body temperature, cough score, nasal discharge score, eye score and ear score and general health score determined every week from the 4th day they were included in the trial until the 60th day of the trial \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003cem\u003e).\u003c/em\u003e However, although the rate of calves requiring treatment was the same in both groups, it was observed that the number of calves requiring monitoring was lower in the treatment group \u003cb\u003e(Fig.\u0026nbsp;3)\u003c/b\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn this study, oral administration of 300 mg/ml propolis extract prepared in 70% ethanol to calves showed positive effects in favor of the propolis group in terms of BWG and FCR \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.05). BW, WH, RH and CD measurements were also statistically significantly higher in the propolis group than in the control \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e (Table 1). Although the starting weights were lower, higher BWG and FCR were found in female calves. The findings of this study are consistent with the findings of Y\u0026uuml;cel et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), who reported that 2 cc (500 mg/ml propolis prepared with 70% ethanol) propolis positively affects the body parameters of calves. Y\u0026uuml;cel et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), also observed that significant differences in BW, BL and WH parameters, especially between the control and treatment groups of females \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003cem\u003e).\u003c/em\u003e Kupczyński et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) added EEP (containing 10% propolis to 2 ml and 4 ml/day) to milk replacer feeds in their study on 45 calves, and it was statistically significant \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e higher BW was obtained. In a study by Zawadzki et al. (2011), it was observed that BW and FCR were improved in the group consuming EEP when they gave feeds containing monensin (300 mg/animal/day) and propolis extract (35 g/animal/day) to calves \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e. In another study on 20 Holstein calves, high doses (3.6 x 10\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;3\u003c/sup\u003e g/kg BW) of 300 mg/g EEP prepared in 80% ethanol increased BW \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e, but it had no effect on other body measurements \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0,05\u003c/em\u003e) (Yaghoubi et al.; \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Tolon et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e) found that when they orally administered 50% EEP to calves, BWG was positively affected in females \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e, but not in males. Thus, they showed that propolis can also be affected by gender differences. In the same study, the mean body weight gain at the end of the trial in the group given propolis was found to be 46.07 g/day higher than the control group \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e. In contrast, Slanzon et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) reported that EEP additive (4 ml, 300 mg/ml red propolis) mixed with milk replacer feed had no effect on feed intake and performance in their study on 32 newborn calves. Sarker et al. (2010), in a study using antibiotics (neomycin 110 ppm), ilit (2%) and propolis (0.05%) in weaned Hanwoo Korean calves, reported that although propolis had a partial effect on growth potential and feed consumption, its effect was insignificant compared to the antibiotic group \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e. It is thought that the source, amount, and alcohol dilution rates of raw propolis used in the studies may be effective in these different results obtained because of the application.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen the EEP application is evaluated in terms of fecal score, and diarrhea cases; in this study, propolis extract decreased feces consistency and positively affected the number of days with diarrhea and fecal scores (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) (Figs.\u0026nbsp;1\u0026ndash;2). In the study of Y\u0026uuml;cel et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), fecal score in the propolis group (500 mg/ml propolis prepared with 2 cc 70% ethanol) was significantly different from the control group \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e. It was reported by the researchers that the health indicator of the calves in the propolis group remained with a score close to 1 after weaning, and diarrhea cases were not observed during the suckling period. Kupczyński et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) also observed similar results (2 ml and 4 ml/day milk replacer containing 10% propolis). In particular, the application of propolis at the amount of 4 ml/day caused a significant \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.01\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e decrease in the evaluation of diarrhea intensity on the score scale. It was reported by the investigators that the general condition of the calves and the assessment of dehydration were better in calves given both doses of the preparation and that typical acute clinical symptoms of digestive system disorders were not observed during the entire study period. Slanzon et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) observed that the addition of EEP (4 ml, 300 mg/ml red propolis) mixed with milk replacer feed reduced fecal score, diarrhea days, and diarrhea cases requiring treatment (\u003cem\u003eP\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.0001). The results obtained in this study support the results obtained in the other studies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough the digestive tract of newborn calves is sterile, \u003cem\u003eEscherichia coli\u003c/em\u003e bacteria rapidly colonize all parts of the digestive tract within the first 8 hours after birth. \u003cem\u003eLactobacillus spp.\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eStreptococcus spp.\u003c/em\u003e species can be detected in the digestive tract 24 hours after birth. In a healthy animal, \u003cem\u003eLactobacillus spp.\u003c/em\u003e is rapidly colonized instead of coliforms (Wallace \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2007). However, high colonization of coliform bacteria and low \u003cem\u003eLactobacillus spp.\u003c/em\u003e level in the digestive tract cause diarrhea cases that are frequently encountered in the rearing of young animals and cause serious economic losses (G\u0026ouml;rg\u0026uuml;l\u0026uuml; et al. \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). The main bacteria responsible for gastrointestinal infections have been identified as \u003cem\u003eEscherichia coli, Klebsiella oxytoca\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eEnterococcus faecalis\u003c/em\u003e. As a result of the study conducted by Sosin-Bzducha et al (2012), they concluded that the application of higher doses of propolis in a shorter time provides a better recovery and a longer supplementation is needed at lower doses. In \u003cem\u003ein vitro\u003c/em\u003e studies, it has been determined that EEP has antimicrobial activities on the test microorganisms used (\u003cem\u003eEscherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Salmonella typhimurium, Proteus vulgaris, Candida ablicans\u003c/em\u003e) (da Silva et al. \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e, Bakkaloğlu \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e 2019). No study was found on the effectiveness of EEP on beneficial microorganisms in the calf digestive system. However, in a study conducted on rats (El-Shobaki et al. \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), it was determined that the number of \u003cem\u003eBifidobacterum spp.\u003c/em\u003e increased, and the number of coliforms decreased in the EEP group. In this study, no difference was found in the experimental and control groups in terms of \u003cem\u003eLactobacillus spp.\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eBifidobacter spp.\u003c/em\u003e species. It is thought that this situation may be related to the amount of propolis used or the duration of use.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith the fermentation of prebiotics by beneficial microorganisms, the amount of volatile fatty acids in the intestine increases and the intestinal pH decreases. This suppresses the development of potential pathogens in the gut (De Vrese \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2007). In the study, it was observed that fecal pH decreased significantly \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e in the propolis group, especially after the 6th week.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a result of this study, it was determined that the administration of ethanol extract propolis to calves in the preweaning period had a positive effect on performance and fecal structure, and decreased feces fluidity and diarrhea. These results led to the conclusion that propolis extract has the potential to positively affect the growth performance and health status of suckling calves.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors Contribution Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAK, and NK conceived and designed research. AK conducted experiments and evaluated health records. AIK performed microbiological analyses o feces. AK, and NK wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe dataset of the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was funded by Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit of Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa. Project number: TDK-2021-35672.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll procedures of the study were approved by the Animal Experiments Ethic Committee of Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine (Approval No: 2020/34 and Date: 28/12/2020). The procedures performed in the study were also in accordance with the national legislation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors consented to participation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors consented to submit the manuscript to the journal.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflict of Interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAOAC International. 2002. Official Methods of Analysis. 18th ed. AOAC Int., Gaithersburg, MD.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAraujo, G., Yunta, C,, Terre, M., Mereu, A., Ipharraguerre, I. \u0026amp; Bach, A., 2015. Intestinal permeability and incidence of diarrhea in newborn calves. Journal of Dairy Science, 98: 7309\u0026ndash;7317.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBakkaloğlu, Z. \u0026amp; Arıcı, M., 2019. Farklı \u0026Ccedil;\u0026ouml;z\u0026uuml;c\u0026uuml;lerle Propolis Ekstraksiyonunun Toplam Fenolik İ\u0026ccedil;eriği, Antioksidan Kapasite ve Antimikrobiyal Aktivite \u0026Uuml;zerine Etkileri. Akademik Gıda Dergisi 17(4) 538\u0026ndash;545.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBatmaz, H., 2015. Buzağı Y\u0026ouml;netimi ve Sağlığı. Edit\u0026ouml;r: BATMAZ H, Sığırlarda S\u0026uuml;r\u0026uuml; Sağlığı ve Y\u0026ouml;netimi, 1. Baskı, Alfa Akt\u0026uuml;el Yayınları, Bursa, pp: 120\u0026ndash;153.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCecere, B.G.O., da Silva, A.S., Molosse, V.L., Alba, D.F., Leal, K.W., da Rosa, G,. Pereira, W.A.B., da Silva, A.D., Schetinger, M.R.C., Kempka, A.P., Nunes, A., Maraschin, M., Araujo, D.N., Deolindo, G.L. \u0026amp; Vedovatto, M., 2021. Addition of propolis to milk improves lactating lamb\u0026rsquo;s growth: effect on antimicrobial, antioxidant and immune responses in animals. Small Ruminant Research, doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.smallrumres\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.smallrumres\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Vol.194. 106265\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDa Silva, C., Prasniewski, A., Calegari, M.A., de Lima, V.A. \u0026amp; Oldoni, T.L., 2018. Determination of total phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity of ethanolic extracts of propolis using ATR\u0026ndash;FT-IR spectroscopy and chemometrics. Food Analytical Methods, 11(7), 2013\u0026ndash;2021.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDe Vrese, M. \u0026amp; Marteau, P.R., 2007. Probiotics and prebiotics: effects on diarrhea. Journal of Nutrition, 137 (2): 803\u0026ndash;811.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDenli, M., Cankaya, S., Silici, S., Okan, F. \u0026amp; Uluocak, A.N., 2005. Effect of Dietary Addition of Turkish Propolis on the Growth Performance, Carcass Characteristics and Serum Variables of Quail (Coturnix Coturnix Japanica). Asian- Australasian Journal of Animal Science (AJAS), 18 (6): 848\u0026ndash;854.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEl-Shobaki, F.A., Refaat, O.G., Saleh, Z.A., Abd-Elftah, A.B.S. \u0026amp; El-Hagar, E.F., 2011. The effect of consuming a cake containing propolis on gut micro flora and toxicity. Journal American Science,7(7): 421\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErdogan, S., Ates, B., Durmaz, G., Yılmaz, I. \u0026amp; Seckin, T., 2011. Pressurized liquid extraction of phenolic compounds from Anatolia propolis and their radical scavenging capacities. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 49:1592\u0026ndash;1597.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eG\u0026ouml;rg\u0026uuml;l\u0026uuml;, M., Siuta, A., \u0026Ouml;ngel, E., Yurtseven, S. \u0026amp; Kutlu, H.R., 2003. Effects of probiotic on growing performance and health of calves. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 6(7): 651\u0026ndash;654.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKač\u0026aacute;niov\u0026aacute;, M., Rovn\u0026aacute;, K., Arp\u0026aacute;šov\u0026aacute;, H., Cuboň, J., Hleba, L., Pochop, J., Kunov\u0026aacute;, S. \u0026amp; Hašč\u0026iacute;k P., 2012. In vitro and in vivo antimicrobial activity of propolis on the microbiota from gastrointestinal tract of chickens. Journal of Environmental Science and Healh, 47(11):1665\u0026ndash;1671.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKadhim, M.J., Los, A., Olszewski, K. \u0026amp; Borsuk, G., 2018. Propolis in Livestock Nutrition. Entomol Ornithol Herpetol., 7: 207.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKara, K., Kocaoğlu G\u0026uuml;\u0026ccedil;l\u0026uuml;, B. \u0026amp; Karakaş Oğuz, F., 2014. Propolis ve Fenolik Asitlerin Ruminant Beslemede Kullanımı. Erciyes \u0026Uuml;niversitesi Veteriner Fak\u0026uuml;ltesi Dergisi, 11: 43\u0026ndash;53.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKarslı, M.A. \u0026amp; Evci, Ş., 2018. The Importance of Cattle and Calf Nutrition in Preventing Calf Losses. Lalahan Hayvancılık Araştırma Enstit\u0026uuml;s\u0026uuml; Dergisi, 58:23\u0026ndash;34\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKupczyński, R., Adamski, M., Falta, D. \u0026amp; Roman, A., 2012. The efficiency of propolis in post-colostral dairy calves. Archiv fur Tierzucht 55(4): 315\u0026ndash;324.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLarson, L.L., Owen, F.G., Albright, J.L., Appleman, R.D., Lamb, R.C. \u0026amp; Muller, L.D., 1977. Guidelines toward more uniformity in measuring and reporting calf experimental data. Journal of Dairy Science, 60(6), 989\u0026ndash;991.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcGuirk, S., 2013. Calf Health Scoring Chart. University of Wisconsin, School of Veterinary Medicine. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.vetmed.wisc.edu/dms/fapm/fapmtools/8calf/calf_health_scoring_ chart.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.vetmed.wisc.edu/dms/fapm/fapmtools/8calf/calf_health_scoring_ chart.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (Accessed 2 December 2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePrakatur, I., Miskulin, M., Pavic, M., Marjanovic, K., Blazicevic, V., Miskulin, I. \u0026amp; Domacinovic M., 2019. Intestinal Morphology in Broiler Chickens Supplemented with Propolis and Bee Pollen. Animals (Basel). 31;9(6):301.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSahin, A., Baylan, M., Sahinler, N., G\u0026uuml;l, A., 2003. Propolisin Japon Bıldırcınlarında Besi Performansı ve Karkas \u0026Ouml;zelliklerine Etkisi. Uludag Bee Journal, 3 (4): 42\u0026ndash;44.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSarker, M.S.K. \u0026amp; Yang, C.J. 2010. Propolis and illite as feed additivies on performance and blood profiles of pre-weaning Hanwoo calves. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 9(19): 2526\u0026ndash;31.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShedeed, H.A., Farrag, B., Elwakeel, E.A., El-Hamid, I., \u0026amp; El-Rayes, M.A., 2019. Propolis supplementation improved productivity, oxidative status, and immune response of Barki ewes and lambs. Veterinary World, 12(6), 834\u0026ndash;843.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSlanzon, G.S., Toledo, A.F., Silva, A.P., Coelho, M.G., da Silva, M.D., Cezar, A.M. \u0026amp; Bittar, M.M., 2019. Red propolis as an additive for preweaned dairy calves: Effect on growth performance, health, and selected blood parameters. Journal of Dairy Science, 102(10):8952\u0026ndash;8962.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSorucu, A., 2015. Marmara B\u0026ouml;lgesindeki Propolislerde Biyolojik Etkisi Olan Fenolik Madde ve Miktarlarının Mevsim ve Rakım Farkına Bağlı Olarak Belirlenmesi. T. C. Uludağ \u0026Uuml;niversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstit\u0026uuml;s\u0026uuml; Doktora Tezi, S:44.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSosin-Bzducha, E. \u0026amp; Strzetelski J., 2012. Propolis źr\u0026oacute;dłem flawonoid\u0026oacute;w korzystnych dla zdrowia i produkcyjności bydła. Wiadomości Zootechniczne, 50(2), 23\u0026ndash;28.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTolon, B., \u0026Ouml;nen\u0026ccedil;, A., Kaya, A., Altan, \u0026Ouml;. 2002. Effects of propolis on growth of calves.1st German Congress for Bee Products and Apitherapy. 23\u0026ndash;24 March, Passau-Germany.P.71.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Soest, P. J., Robertson, J.B., \u0026amp; Lewis. B.A., 1991. Methods fordietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74:3583\u0026ndash;3597\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWallace, R.J., Newbold, C.J., 2007. Microbial feed additives for ruminants. Biotechnology in Animal Feeds and Animal Feeding. Published Online, 101\u0026ndash;125\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYaghoubi, S.M.J., Ghorbani, G.R., Rahmani, H.R. \u0026amp; Nikkhah A., 2008. Growth, weaning performance, and blood indicators of humoral immunity in Holstein calves fed flavonoids. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 92: 456\u0026ndash;462.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eY\u0026uuml;cel, B., Onenc, A., Kaya, A. and Altan, O., 2015. Effects of Propolis Administration on Growth Performance and Neonatal Diarrhea of Calves. SOJ Dairy and Veterinary Science, 1(1): 102.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZafarnejad, K., Afzali, N. \u0026amp; Rajabzadeh, M., 2017. Effect of bee glue on growth performance and immune response of broiler chickens. Journal of Applied Animal Research, 45: 280\u0026ndash;284.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZawadzkii, F., Prado, I.N., Marques, J.A., Zeoula, L.M., Rotta, P.P., Sestari, B.B., Valero, M.V. \u0026amp; Rivaroli DC., 2011. Sodium monensin or propolis extract in the diets of feedlot-finished bulls: effects on animal perfomance and carcass characteristics. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences, 20: 16\u0026ndash;25.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Table","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1.\u003c/strong\u003e Feed intake and performance of calves supplemented or not with propolis extract (4 mL/d of EEP)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" width=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" rowspan=\"2\" width=\"25.3781512605042%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMeasurements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" width=\"31.764705882352942%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTreatment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" width=\"42.857142857142854%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eP value\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.831460674157304%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eControl\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.831460674157304%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePropolis\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.808988764044944%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSEM\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"17.078651685393258%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTreatment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.808988764044944%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGender\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"27.640449438202246%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTreatment*Gender\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" width=\"25.335570469798657%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFI (g)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.073825503355705%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16635.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.073825503355705%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16946.66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.563758389261745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e114.54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" width=\"12.751677852348994%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.098\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" width=\"9.563758389261745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.059\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" width=\"20.63758389261745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.999\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" width=\"44.411764705882355%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFI (g/day)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.41176470588235%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e297.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.41176470588235%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e302.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"16.764705882352942%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" width=\"44.411764705882355%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDMI (g)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.41176470588235%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54715.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.41176470588235%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54954.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"16.764705882352942%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e97.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" width=\"44.411764705882355%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDMI (g/day) (0-60)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.41176470588235%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e911.93\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.41176470588235%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e915.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"16.764705882352942%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.74\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" width=\"25.335570469798657%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBWG (kg)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.073825503355705%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30.06\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.073825503355705%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.09\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.563758389261745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" width=\"12.751677852348994%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" width=\"9.563758389261745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.032\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" width=\"20.63758389261745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.361\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" width=\"44.411764705882355%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBWG (g/day) (0-60)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.41176470588235%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e501.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.41176470588235%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e551.65\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"16.764705882352942%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8,04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" width=\"25.335570469798657%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFCR\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.073825503355705%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.82\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.073825503355705%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.67\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.563758389261745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.751677852348994%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.563758389261745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.035\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.63758389261745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.399\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" width=\"11.073825503355705%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBW (kg)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.261744966442953%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInitial\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.073825503355705%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.073825503355705%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38.26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.563758389261745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.751677852348994%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.789\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.563758389261745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.63758389261745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.454\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"16.037735849056602%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFinal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.452830188679245%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e68.37\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.452830188679245%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e71.35\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754716981132075%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.339622641509434%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754716981132075%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"23.20754716981132%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0504\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" width=\"11.073825503355705%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBL (cm)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.261744966442953%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInitial\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.073825503355705%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e68.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.073825503355705%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e67.70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.563758389261745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.751677852348994%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.108\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.563758389261745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.007\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.63758389261745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.587\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"16.037735849056602%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFinal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.452830188679245%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e85.58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.452830188679245%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e85.59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754716981132075%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.339622641509434%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.965\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754716981132075%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.933\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"23.20754716981132%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.085\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" width=\"11.073825503355705%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWH (cm)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.261744966442953%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInitial\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.073825503355705%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e75.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.073825503355705%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e75.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.563758389261745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.751677852348994%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.835\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.563758389261745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.009\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.63758389261745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.681\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"16.037735849056602%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFinal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.452830188679245%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e85.20\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.452830188679245%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e87.40\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754716981132075%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.339622641509434%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754716981132075%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.032\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"23.20754716981132%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.079\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" width=\"11.073825503355705%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRH (cm)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.261744966442953%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInitial\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.073825503355705%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e77.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.073825503355705%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e77.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.563758389261745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.751677852348994%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.732\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.563758389261745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.006\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.63758389261745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.787\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"16.037735849056602%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFinal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.452830188679245%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e88.35\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.452830188679245%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90.56\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754716981132075%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.339622641509434%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754716981132075%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.058\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"23.20754716981132%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.173\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" width=\"11.073825503355705%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCC (cm)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.261744966442953%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInitial\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.073825503355705%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e74.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.073825503355705%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e73.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.563758389261745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.751677852348994%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.246\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.563758389261745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.690\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.63758389261745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.851\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"16.037735849056602%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFinal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.452830188679245%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e88.55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.452830188679245%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e88.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754716981132075%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.339622641509434%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.710\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754716981132075%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.608\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"23.20754716981132%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.654\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" width=\"11.073825503355705%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCD (cm)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.261744966442953%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInitial\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.073825503355705%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.073825503355705%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.563758389261745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.751677852348994%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.914\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.563758389261745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.746\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.63758389261745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.914\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"16.037735849056602%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFinal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.452830188679245%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35.61\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.452830188679245%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36.58\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754716981132075%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.339622641509434%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.754716981132075%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.627\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"23.20754716981132%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.689\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e1\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003ePropolis = 4 mL/d of ethanolic extract of propolis (30%).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e P\u0026lt;0.05 values are statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003ea,b\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003eMeans of the measurements in the same row, with different letters differ significantly (P\u0026lt;0.05).\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":true,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"tropical-animal-health-and-production","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"trop","sideBox":"Learn more about [Tropical Animal Health and Production](https://www.springer.com/journal/11250)","snPcode":"11250","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/11250/3","title":"Tropical Animal Health and Production","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Dairy calf, propolis, performance, health, fecal score","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-1676290/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1676290/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of propolis ethanol extract (EEP), a natural beekeeping product, on performance, fecal structure and general health status of calves during the preweaning phase. For this purpose, 24 newborn Simmental calves in a private farm were used as animal material. Calves given colostrum for the first 3 days after birth were divided into two similar groups according to their birth weight and gender. Differently from the control group, the calves in the experimental group (propolis) were given orally 4 ml/day propolis extract (30%; EEP). Weekly nasal discharge, cough, eye, ear and general health scoring, rectal body temperature and fecal pH measurement, daily fecal scoring and diarrhea day follow-up were performed for each calf in the study, which lasted up to 60 days of age. Feces samples taken from all calves at the beginning and at the end of the study were evaluated for \u003cem\u003eLactobacillus spp.\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eBifidobacter spp.\u003c/em\u003e At the end of the study; statistical differences were found between the groups in favor of the propolis group in terms of body weight gain (BWG), feed conversion ratio (FCR), body weight (BW), withers height (WH), rump height (RH) and chest depth (CD) \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e. At the end of the study, propolis extract positively affected the number of days with diarrhea and feces scores \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e; no statistically significant difference was found in terms of health scores and feces culture \u003cem\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003cem\u003e).\u003c/em\u003e In addition, it was observed that the number of calves that needed to be monitored in terms of health status was less in the experimental group.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Effects of Propolis Extract on Growth Performance and Health Condition of Dairy Calves","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2022-07-06 17:49:54","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-1676290/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"","date":"2022-07-28T11:31:14+00:00","index":0,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2022-06-30T08:55:32+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2022-06-25T07:01:46+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Tropical Animal Health and Production","date":"2022-05-20T06:13:11+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"tropical-animal-health-and-production","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"trop","sideBox":"Learn more about [Tropical Animal Health and Production](https://www.springer.com/journal/11250)","snPcode":"11250","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/11250/3","title":"Tropical Animal Health and Production","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"9f1d2e36-9e44-4f47-91ef-3da04673f4e0","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 6th, 2022","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2023-10-16T20:08:22+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-1676290","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-023-03542-2","journal":{"identity":"tropical-animal-health-and-production","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Tropical Animal Health and Production"},"publishedOn":"2023-03-16 20:02:30","publishedOnDateReadable":"March 16th, 2023"},"versionCreatedAt":"2022-07-06 17:49:54","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s11250-023-03542-2","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-023-03542-2","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-1676290","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-1676290","identity":"rs-1676290","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"_2-kVJe1T_tPrBINL-cwx","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}